Regional Workshop on the UNDP Evaluation Policy Arab States

More documents

Recommendations

Info

problems in the region. However, what is singularly missing is the benchmarking process and culture of evaluation. The key elements of the UNDP Evaluation Policy were introduced by Saraswathi Menon, Director, Evaluation Office. The second session, Evaluation in the National & <strong>Regional</strong> Context, provided an opportunity for governments, civil society, associations and academia to present self-directed solutions, approaches and systems in addressing regional and national challenges and in contributing to accountability, learning and improvement across the board at the national level. Talal Abu Ghazaleh, Chairperson and CEO of Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization, underscored that “we cannot manage what we cannot measure.” The key thrust of his presentation was that while so much work has been done in the Arab region in terms of financial auditing, there still remains a need for demonstrating similar efforts for setting an accreditation system and a quality assurance mechanism for monitoring and evaluation in the region. The third session, UNDP Evaluation Policy and its Implications for the way UNDP Works, sought to establish a clear understanding of UNDP Evaluation Policy. It highlighted key parameters of the policy, roles and responsibilities for evaluation across the organization, and the existing support systems and mechanisms at the corporate level to support the implementation of the policy at the country level. The session also focused on UN reform and evaluation, especially the key issues and challenges in evaluation in the context of the UN reform agenda, the role of the UNCT in Jordan, and methodological challenges and lessons learned in addressing gender mainstreaming issues in evaluation. The final session, The Way Forward, provided an opportunity for UNDP staff and government counterparts to identify measures and actions to be carried out in their particular situation in implementing the policy. 1.4 Evaluation of the <strong>Workshop</strong> by the Participants UNDP staff and government counterparts assessed the success of the workshop on two criteria: 1) the degree to which the various sessions helped them achieve the workshop objectives; and 2) the level of usefulness of the structure and delivery of the workshop in achieving the objectives of the workshop. Around 60% of the total participants responded to the questionnaires: • Eighty-two percent (82%) of the respondents rated the workshop as having been largely or completely successful in achieving its objectives. • The modalities of the workshop were also well received, with 89% of participants indicating that the way in which the workshop was delivered was largely or completely useful in helping achieve the workshop objectives. • Reporting in plenary on group work and discussions of this work was regarded particularly useful (95%) as it facilitated cross-group learning and knowledge sharing. • Small group work sessions were also considered critical for the success of the workshop (90%). Qualitative responses on the questionnaire highlighted the strong and active participation of national government representatives as well as UNDP staff that enabled lively and open exchange of politically sensitive issues. Most of the plenary topics covered were considered useful for implementing the policy at the national and corporate levels. However, some participants indicated that some of the plenary presentations for session 3 could have been better planned to make them more succinct and easy to follow. It was suggested that future workshops should factor in the importance of plenary discussions and include additional time (days) to allow for 6
sufficient coverage and internalization of key issues. Most participants appreciated the translation facilities (Arabic, French & English). Annex 3 provides further breakdown on the findings of the workshop evaluation. 2.0 Implementing the Policy – Issues and Recommendations of the <strong>Workshop</strong> The following section summarizes the key issues, their implications, and the recommended actions made during the workshop, drawing on case examples. Where appropriate, this is prefaced by relevant sections from the evaluation policy. Recommended actions are supported by an indication of who may act upon the recommendation. A full set of presentations made in each session of the workshop can be downloaded from the workshop website: [http://stone.undp.org/undpweb/eo/evalnet/workshop/policy_launch/as.cfm] 2.1 Evaluation alignment with national priorities Relevant sections of the Evaluation Policy Evaluation should be guided by national priorities and concerns. It should be inclusive and take into account diverse national interests and values. Evaluation should strengthen partnerships with governments and key stakeholders. It should build the capacity of national institutions to implement, monitor and evaluate. Senior management of Country Offices, regional bureaux, practice and policy bureaux and the associated funds and programmes will identify, with partner governments and key stakeholders, priority areas for evaluation when preparing the programme, and designing and implementing a strategic evaluation plan. Key issues and implications In general, evaluations undertaken by UNDP have not always been aligned with national priorities or able to effectively engage government and other stakeholders (e.g. the private sector and other elements of civil society). The region is not homogenous in terms of civil society development, which makes broader stakeholder involvement in evaluation process particularly challenging. Furthermore, target beneficiaries generally tend to be excluded from the evaluation systems, and in most of the countries affected by conflict, the governments’ have weak relations with donors, where national institutions do not have the capacity to undertake relevant evaluations. For instance, there are M&E systems within aid coordination mechanisms in certain post-crisis countries (e.g. SUDAN). However, there may be an absence of M&E function within national systems and formal mechanism of coordination between counterparts and UNDP. National representatives from the Net Contributing Countries (NCCs) such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya and the UAE indicated that they have not been very successful in commissioning evaluations due to “political” circumstances. They highlighted certain difficulties they would face in initiating evaluations in their respective countries given the level of resources they provide to UNDP operations. These trends have significant implications for enhancing national ownership of evaluations, accountability (i.e. among government, UNDP, public and donors) and development results. For 7
Page 1 and 2: Regional W
Page 3 and 4: allocate sufficient human and finan
Page 5: 1 .0. Introduction In June 2006, th
Page 9 and 10: Evaluation should strengthen partne
Page 11 and 12: 2.3 Evaluation for managing results
Page 13 and 14: there should be a mechanism to aler
Page 15 and 16: dissemination and the degree to whi
Page 17 and 18: • Organize training courses by RB
Page 19 and 20: Evaluation, Ministry of Planning an
Page 21 and 22: DAY 3 Tuesday, 6 February 8:30 - 8:
Page 23 and 24: Saudi Arabia Somalia Sudan Syria Tu
Page 25 and 26: Ehsan Evaluation Office Michelle Sy
Page 27 and 28: Comments: The group work were too s

Regional Workshop on the UNDP Evaluation Policy Arab States

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?